NC0001422_Draft Permit Comments_20150808

• Cimi) DUKE Environmental Services
ENERGY® Duke Energy
526 South Church Street
Charlotte,NC 28202
Mailing Address:
Mail Code EC3XP/P.O.Box 1006
Charlotte,NC 28201-1006
August 5, 2015
North Carolina Department of
Environment and Natural Resources Rf�l✓EIVEDIDENRIDWR
Division of Water Resources AUG _ s 2015
Attn: Wastewater Permitting
1617 Mail Service Center water Quality
Permitting Section
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
Subject: Comments on the DRAFT NPDES Permit for L.V. Sutton Energy Complex
Permit No.: NC0001422
New Hanover County
Wastewater Permitting staff:
The North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR) Division of Water
Resources (the Division) issued a draft National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit
for the Duke Energy(hereinafter"Duke") L.V.Sutton Energy Complex dated July 1, 2015 (Draft Permit).
Duke Energy commends NCDENR for developing the Draft Permit, which recognizes the existing
discharges from the facility's outfalls will not cause contravention of the state water quality standards.
Safe, long-term storage of coal ash across all of Duke's coal fired generation fleet fleet is a priority for
Duke. The issuance of the final NPDES permit is a critical prerequisite to de-watering the ash basins at
Sutton and moving forward with the Company's previously announced intent to excavate the Sutton ash
basins.
Duke continues to work as quickly as possible to close the ash basins and finalizing this wastewater
permit is a critical step to advance the ash basin closure process. In order to facilitate the closure
process, Duke supports any permit conditions that are reasonable, supported by applicable law,
regulation and appropriate administrative procedures, and ensure that any discharges will not adversely
affect water quality. However, Duke does not support the inclusion of permit requirements that are
without the support of law, regulation and/or appropriate administrative procedures. Duke, therefore,
respectfully submits the following comments on the subject permit.
NCDENR appears to have issued the Draft Permit in accordance with the letter from Thomas A. Reeder
to Mr. Harry Sideris with Duke, dated November 5, 2014 (Notice Letter), giving notice of the need to
revise the Plant's NPDES permit(NC0001422) (Existing Permit), based on NCDENR's decision to reclassify
the Plant's cooling pond (a/k/a Sutton Lake) as a "waters of the State." In response, Duke filed a
protective appeal of the Notice Letter by a petition for contested case hearing filed at the Office of

Page 12
Administrative Hearings on December 5, 2014 (Appeal). At Duke's request,there has been no action on
the Appeal since it was filed.
I.Comments on the Development of the Technology Based Effluent Limits(TBELs)
The subject permit attempts to establish technology based effluent limits (TBELs) for arsenic and
selenium for outfalls 001,outfall 002 and Outfall 004.The TBELs for arsenic and selenium were based on
an evaluation of the effluent data from the ash basin discharges from Belews Creek,Allen and Marshall
Steam Stations.
The NPDES regulations at §125.3(c)(2) require permit writers developing case-by-case effluent
limitations to consider the following:
• The appropriate technology for the category class of point sources of which the applicant is a
member,based on all available information.
• Any unique factors relating to the applicant.
The regulations also require that, in setting case-by-case limitations, the permit writer consider several
specific factors established in §125.3(d), to select a model treatment technology and derive effluent
limitations on the basis of that treatment technology. That process and the factors considered by the
permit writer are the same factors required to be considered by EPA in developing effluent guidelines.
For establishing best available technology(BAT) requirements for toxic and non-conventional pollutants,
the following factors must be considered:
— The age of equipment and facilities involved,
— Process employed,
— Engineering aspects of the application of various types of control techniques,
— Process changes,
— The cost of achieving such effluent reductions,and
— Non-water quality environmental impacts(including energy requirements).
Based on the information published by the Division, there was no indication that any of these
required factors were considered in establishing the proposed TBELs and the TBELs are thereby not
supported by proper development and process.
Furthermore, the Fact Sheet states "The existing federal regulations require the development of
Technology Based Effluent Limits (TBELs) for the parameters of concern." NPDES delegated authority's
have the discretion to choose whether or not to impose BPJ limits as evidenced by a recent court ruling
in Tennessee. The state court affirmed a 2013 decision of the Tennessee Board of Water Quality, Oil,
and Gas (the Board) holding that TVA's Bull Run Fossil Plant is not required to have "BPJ" permit limits
beyond what the 1982 Effluent Limitations Guidelines require. The Board ruled against
environmentalists' claim that more permit limits were required. The Board stated the permit complies
with the 1982 ELG rules, and "[b]ecause the 1982 ELG for power plants governs, a Best Professional
Judgment(BPJ) analysis was not required."The Board further stated, when EPA set the 1982 rules, EPA

Page 13
considered setting numeric limits for metals but decided not to because they were "present in amounts
too small to be effectively reduced"1.
In addition, it is stated in EPA's NPDES Permitting Manual (September 2010), regarding situations in
which case-by-case TBELs are necessary, "The permit writer should make sure that the pollutant of
concern is not already controlled by the effluent guidelines and was not considered by EPA when the
Agency developed the effluent guidelines."2 Since EPA considered setting numeric limits for metals, the
Division is not obligated to establish TBELs for these parameters.
The Division's decision to propose TBELs appears to be dictated by a memorandum from James A.
Hanlon to EPA Water Division Directors for its Regions: Memorandum, James A. Hanlon to Water
Division Directors, Regions 1-10, "National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permitting of
Wastewater Discharges from Flue Gas Desulfurization (FGD) and Coal Combustion Residuals (CCR)
Impoundments at Steam Electric Power Plants" (June 7, 2010). It is important to note the Hanlon
memorandum is guidance and not legally binding,as stated in Section VI of the memo.
II. Permit assumes Sutton Cooling Pond is"waters of the State"
Duke will evaluate the Appeal in light of the provisions of the Draft Permit, but nothing contained in
these comments should be taken as contrary to Duke's position in the Appeal. In particular, nothing in
these comments should be seen as an acknowledgement or acceptance of any currently disputed facts
with regard to the status of the classification of Sutton Cooling pond as "waters of the State" as
challenged in the Appeal. This reservation includes any terms in the Draft Permit that are based on (or
otherwise flow from) the assertions and assumptions in the Notice Letter, including, without limitation,
the portions of Sections A.(3.),A.(4.),A.(8.),A. (9.)and A.(26.)
Ill.Specific comments on outfall 001 conditions
1. The fact sheet for the Draft Permit acknowledges that outfall 001 contains a "cooling pond
discharge", "Non contact cooling water"and "recirculating cooling water"further supporting
Duke's position that the supposed "reclassification"of the facility's cooling pond to"waters of
the state"was not carried out following proper administrative process.
2. Upstream and Downstream monitoring for temperature is a modified requirement should be
removed from the permit. In accordance with the MOA between NCDENR, NCDWR and
members of the Lower Cape Fear River program, instream monitoring is conducted by one
organization to increase efficiency, effectiveness, and flexibility and to ensure basinwide
consistency. Duke has entered into a contract with the University of North Carolina at
Wimington, as a member of the Lower Cape Fear river program, to perform this monitoring.
1 In the Matter of Tennessee Clean Water Network v. Tennessee Dept.of Environment and Conservation,Case No.
WPC10-0116(Tenn. Dept.of Env.and Conservation Dec.17,2013).
2 Refer to EPA's NPDES Permit Writers' Manual,September 2010,Section 5.2.3.2"Identifying the Need for Case-
by-Case TBELs"p.5-45—46.

Page 14
Duke request the waiver of individual Upstream/Downstream sampling for being a member in
the Lower Cape Fear River program be reinserted into the permit
3. The permit imposes TBELs for mercury at outfall 001,002 and 004.These limits are based on the
statewide mercury total maximum daily load (TMDL). The fact sheet discusses a statewide
mercury TMDL and asserts that since all Sutton sampling data is below 12 ng/l and maximum
sampling results are below 47 ng/I, no mercury limit is required. However a mercury limit is
imposed. This mercury limit appears to be in direct conflict with the rationale provided in the
fact sheet and should be removed. In lieu of removal, Duke Energy requests a 4.5 year
compliance schedule to comply with the mercury limit. With the limits being newly proposed, a
compliance schedule should be included to allow for the design, evaluation, budget, and
construction of a treatment system to meet the limits.
4. Total Arsenic—The permit proposes a total arsenic daily maximum limit of 50 ug/I. The North
Carolina Enviromental Management Commision reviewed the water quality standard for arsenic
in November 2014 and modified the acute standard to 340 ug/I. The daily maximum limit
should be adjusted to reflect this change.
5. Total iron- The permit proposes a total iron limit of 1.0 mg/I. Duke requests clarification as to
the origin and applicability of this limit. The North Carolina Environmental Management
Commision removed the previous instream standard for iron in November 2014. With the
removal of the coal fired generation at this site, there is currently no categorical steam electric
activity on the site. Duke acknowledges that the proposed modifications to the Steam Electric
Effluent Limitation Guidelines proposed for finalization later this year seeks to clarify
applicability to combined cycle generation units. Until that process has been finalized, it is
Duke's position that the generation at Sutton is not classified as "Steam Electric" and
therefore,categorical iron limits for chemical metal cleaning wastewaters would not apply.
6. Total Aluminum —There is no properly adopted state water quality standard for aluminum in
North Carolina Waters. The presence of naturally occurring aluminum in North Carolina waters
is abundant. Duke staff reviewed EPA STORET data for aluminum analysis in North Carolina
surface waters since 1997. Duke found 30,976 records of analysis of total aluminum. Of those
tests, 27,776 (89.6%) of the samples were in excess of the proposed effluent limit imposed in
the permt of 87 ug/I. The average of those sample results was 723 ug/I. DWR has apparently
attempted to impose a limit based on a reference to aluminum in the EPA National
recommended criteria table. The EPA recommended criteria are not meant to be used for
regulatory purposes. Duke requests this limit be removed as DENR has not established a
properly adopted water quality standard for aluminum.
7. Outfall 001 (Dewatering phase)—Weekly acute toxicity requirements—Weekly acute toxicity
testing is overly burdensome and unnecessary. Duke has not been able to find an aquatic
toxicity laboratory that can support this volume of testing given the required frequency, hold
times, etc. Duke requests that this sampling frequency remain "quarterly" as indicated in
Condition A. (10.) of the permit during dewatering given the stringent other limtis applied to
this activity and Duke's inability to secure testing resources sufficient to meet the
requirement.

. Page 15
IV.Specific comments related to outfall 002
1. Total Arsenic — The permit proposes a total arsenic daily maximum limit of 50 ug/1. The
North Carolina Enviromental Management Commision reviewed the water quality standard
for arsenic in November 2014 and modified the acute standard to 340 ug/I. The daily
maximum limit should be adjusted to reflect this change.
2. As noted in Setion II above, nothing contained in these comments should be taken as
contrary to Duke's position in the Appeal. This reservation includes any terms in Sections
A.(3.),A.(17.)and A.(21.)of the Draft Permit pertaining to Outfall 002.
3. To facilitate preparation for ash removal, Duke requests acknowledgement and recognition
in the permit that water may be pumped from the old ash pond to the new ash pond and
consequently released to the Cape Fear River via outfall 001 if Duke chooses to direct
water in that manner. Flows from Outfall 002 currently cannot be directed to outfall 001
and would need to be sent to outfall 001 (Cape Fear River) via outfall 004 (New ash pond).
Under this scenario,the limits established for outfall 001—dewatering phase should not be
applicable due to the treatment by the new ash pond.
V.Specific comments on outfall 004
1. Total Arsenic—The permit proposes a total arsenic daily maximum limit of 50 ug/I. The North
Carolina Enviromental Management Commision reviewed the water quality standard for arsenic
in November 2014 and modified the acute standard to 340 ug/I. The daily maximum limit
should be adjusted to reflect this change.
2. Total Iron-The permit proposes a total iron limit of 1.0 mg/I. Duke requests clarification as to
the origin and applicability of this limit. The North Carolina Environmental Management
Commision removed the previous instream standard for iron in November 2014. With the
removal of the coal fired generation at this site, there is currently no categorical steam electric
activity on the site. Duke acknowledges that the proposed modifications to the Steam Electric
Effluent Limitation Guidelines proposed for finalization later this year seeks to clarify
applicability to combined cycle generation units. Until that process has been finalized, it is
Duke's position that the generation at Sutton is not classified as "Steam Electric" and
therefore,categorical iron limits for chemical metal cleaning wastewaters would not apply. If
the generation is classified as "Steam Electric" in the future, the total iron limit would only
apply to chemical metal cleaning waste.
3. Total Aluminum —There is no properly adopted state water quality standard for aluminum in
North Carolina Waters. The presence of naturally occurring aluminum in North Carolina waters
is abundant. Duke staff reviewed EPA STORET data for aluminum analysis in North Carolina
surface waters since 1997. Duke found 30,976 records of analysis of total aluminum. Of those
tests, 27,776 (89.6%) of the samples were in excess of the proposed effluent limit imposed in
the permt of 87 ug/I. The average of those sample results was 723 ug/I. DWR has apparently
attempted to impose a limit based on a reference to aluminum in the EPA National
recommended criteria table. The EPA recommended criteria are not meant to be used for
regulatory purposes. Duke requests this limit be removed until DWR establishes a properly
adopted water quality standard for aluminum.

.
Page 16
4. As noted in Setion II above, nothing contained in these comments should be taken as contrary
to Duke's position in the Appeal. This reservation includes any terms in Sections A.(3.),A.(17.)
and A.(21.)of the Draft Permit pertaining to Outfall 004.
5. To facilitate preparation for ash removal, Duke requests acknowledgement and recognition in
the permit that water may be pumped from the old ash pond to the new ash pond and
consequently released to the Cape Fear River via outfall 001 if Duke chooses to direct water in
that manner. Flows from Outfall 002 currently cannot be directed to outfall 001 and would
need to be sent to outfall 001 (Cape Fear River) via outfall 004 (New ash pond). Under this
scenario,the limits established for outfall 001—dewatering phase should not be applicable due
to the treatment by the new ash pond.
VI. pH limits and other conditions on internal wastestreams(outfall 005,006,007 and 009)
1. The proposed pH limits should be removed from internal wastestreams. EPA has allowed for
dilution and comingling as a treatment for pH of internal wastereams. A reference document
supporting this position is attached. (Attachment#1).
2. Outfall 007—Outfall 007 is defined as stormwater flows yet contains a requirement for monthly
sampling. As this flow enters the effluent channel and is composed of stormwater,the sampling
frequency should be reduced to quarterly to align with stormwater sampling activities in other,
recently issued stormwater permits.
3. Outfall 009—Low volume waste from simple cycle combustion turbine—There is no steam cycle
associated with a simple cycle combustion turbine so steam electric effluent guildine limits
should not apply at this point. Duke requests that limits imposed based on effluent guidelines
be removed from this non-steam electric internal outfall.
VII.Specific comments on outfall 008
1. As noted in Setion II above, nothing contained in these comments should be taken as contrary
to Duke's position in the Appeal. This reservation includes any terms in Sections A.(3.),A.(9.),
A.(21.)and A.(26.)of the Draft Permit pertaining to Outfall 008.
2. Duke requests the flow measurement sample type be modified to read "Estimate or pump
logs".
3. Note#2 in outfall 008 is fundamentally inconsistent with the fact that the Sutton cooling pond
was contructed for the purpose of providing evaporative cooling from the facility. Even if the
Sutton Cooling pond is found to be waters of the State, Duke believes that the cooling pond
should be deemed a mixing zone for thermal discharges and requests that the final permit do
so. Regardless, Duke will collect temperature data to use should the company need to apply for
a 316(a)thermal variance or additional thermal mixing zone request at some point in the future.
Duke also requests that the final permit include a compliance schedule to install and begin
recording daily temperatures at the outfall and 1000 feet from the outfall. As the permit is
currently drafted,this daily monitoring would begin upon issuance of the permit; however, such
systems take significant time and effort to design, obtain and implement. Consequently, Duke
requests a minimum of one year to have in place a permanently operational temperature
gauging station capable of transmitting tenmperature data.

. Page 17
4. Note # 5 requires Duke to install a 3/8" mesh screen or barrier. Duke is concerned about the
potential for plugging(obstruction)of such a installation and the impacts that may have on plant
operations. Duke requests the condition be modified to read "The facility shall install a screen
or barrier at the end of the Effluent Channel to minimize fish migration into the channel. The
design of the barrier must be approved by DWR's Wilmington Regional Office and installed
within 12 months of DWR approval."
VIII.Condition A.(18)Clean Water Act Section 316(b)
1. As noted in Setion II above, nothing contained in these comments should be taken as contrary
to Duke's position in the Appeal. This reservation includes any terms in any portions of Section
A.(18.)of the Draft Permit that are affected by or based on the assertions in the Notice Letter.
2. Regardless of the future classification of the Sutton cooling basin or impoundment, Duke
contends the cooling water system for the Sutton combined-cycle unit is properly classified as a
closed-cycle recirculating system (CCRS).The final §316(b) rule for existing facilities defines CCRS
to include impoundments of waters of the U.S. (WOTUS),specifically the definition states:
"(2) Closed-cycle recirculating system also includes a system with impoundments of
waters of the U.S. where the impoundment was constructed prior to October 14,
2014 and created for the purpose of serving as part of the cooling water system as
documented in the project purpose statement for any required Clean Water Act
section 404 permit obtained to construct the impoundment. In the case of an
impoundment whose construction pre-dated the CWA requirement to obtain a
section 404 permit,documentation of the project's purpose must be demonstrated to
the satisfaction of the Director. This documentation could be some other license or
permit obtained to lawfully construct the impoundment for the purposes of a cooling
water system, or other such evidence as the Director finds necessary... If waters of
the United States are withdrawn for purposes of replenishing losses to a closed-cycle
recirculating system other than those due to blowdown, drift, and evaporation from
the cooling system, the Director may determine a cooling system is a closed-cycle
recirculating system if the facility demonstrates to the satisfaction of the Director that
make-up water withdrawals attributed specifically to the cooling portion of the
cooling system have been minimized."
40 C.F.R. § 125.92(c)(2) (emphasis added). This definition provides two simple criteria for
impounded WOTUS to meet to be considered CCRS:
• Criterion#1:The impoundment was constructed prior to October 14,2014; and
• Criterion #2: The impoundment was "created for the purpose of serving as part of the
cooling water system" as documented in the Clean Water Act Section 404 permit or
otherwise demonstrated to the satisfaction of the NPDES Director(i.e., NCDENR).
The following documents are provided as evidence the Sutton Cooling pond meets the criteria above:
1. US Army Corps of Engineers Permit Under Section 10 issued to Carolina & Light Company, dated
June 17, 1971, "authorizing excavating and filling as necessary to construct an off-stream cooling
lake adjacent to the Cape Fear River at the L.V. Sutton Steam Electric Plant near Wilmington,
N.C." (Attachment#2)

Page 18
2. North Carolina Board of Water and Air Resources permit issued to Carolina Power & Light
Company,dated November 19, 1970 granting authorization "for the construction of a 1,110 acre
cooling lake supplied by a river makeup pump to cool and supply the condenser water (580
mgd.)for a 620 M.W.steam electric generation station, purge water will be uniformly controlled
and discharged into the Cape Fear River," (Attachment#3)
Duke, therefore, requests that NCDENR confirm the cooling water system for the Sutton Combined
Cycle is designated as a CCRS. In addition, Duke requests a waiver from all of the information required
under 40 CFR 122.21(r)(9)-(13)as allowed under 40 CFR 122.21(ii)(B),which states:
"Existing facilities greater than 125 mgd AIF. In addition, the owner or operator of an
existing facility that withdraws greater than 125 mgd actual intake flow(AIF),as defined at
40 CFR 125.92 (a), of water for cooling purposes must also submit to the Director for
review the information required under paragraphs (r)(9), (10), (11), (12), and (13) of this
section. If the owner or operator of an existing facility intends to comply with the BTA
(best technology available) standards for entrainment using a closed-cycle recirculating
system as defined at 40 CFR 125.92(c),the Director may reduce or waive some or all of
the information required under paragraphs(r)(9)through(13)of this section."
X.Condition A.(27)
1. Interstitial water should be defined in the permit as entrapped water(i.e., water occupying the
pore space within the ash and below the ash surface). Interstitial wastewater would be
generated through mechanical movement of ash such as through dredging, and excavating
trenches within the ash and discharge would generally occur by controlled pumping.
XI. Additional Comments specific to information found in the permit fact sheet
1. On Page 4,the permit fact sheet makes reference to nitrate/nitrite limits in the permit.
There are no nitrate/nitrite limits in permit. Reference in fact sheet should be corrected.
Duke Energy welcomes any further discussion on our comments or the Draft Permit. If you have any
questions, please contact Mr. E.Shannon Langley at(919)546-2439 or at shannon.langley@duke-
energy.com.
Sincerely,
7 #--`J
Harry Sideris
Duke Energy
Senior Vice President- Environmental, Health&Safety
Attachments
cc: Mr. David May—Sutton Public Hearing officer
943 Washington Square Mall
Washington, NC 27889

Page 19
bc: Jay Huntley-Sutton Station Manager
Jim Wells, VP—Duke EHS CCP
Richard Baker
Kent Tyndall—Sutton Plant Environmental Coordinator
Shannon Langley-NCRH 15
Toya Ogal o—NCRH 15

LV.Sutton Energy Complex
Comments on DRAFT NPDES permit NC0001422
August 5,2015 submittal
Attachment 1

SENT BY:ENU AFFAIRS p ; 2-22-95 7:35AM ; 53479 91'7888218;U 2
A UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON,D.C. 20410
ocr 1 8l98a
Mr, Louis Canzi ani
New York State
Department of Environmental
Conservation
Room 6126
Two World Trade Center
New York , NY 10047
Dear fir. Cenzianl :
This is to confirm our recent conversation regarding
effluent limitations guidelines for the steam electric power
industry (40 CFR Part 423) .
In my letter of June 22, 1984 to Ms . Ursula Basch of
your office , I summarized the applicability of the steam
electric regulation pH limitation as applicable to low volume
waste streams when such wastewaters are commingled with
(once-through) cooling waters . The interpretation that I
provided was not in accord with prior information and instruc-
tions provided to EPA and State permitting authorities on
this subject.
The pH limitation per Part 423 applies at the "end-of-
pipe" discharge to surface waters when the wastewater discharge
contains low volume wastewater thtt is commingled with once-
through cooling water. However, the intent of Part 423 is
also that the total suspended solids and oil and grease
limitations applicable .to low volume waste streams be applied
to the low volume waste component of such a combined discharge
prior to commingling of the individual waste streams .
I apologize for any confusion in permit development or
delays in permit issuance that may have occurred in this
matter. If you have any further questions , please contact me
at (202) 382-7131 .
Sincerely ,
Dennis Ruddy'
Project Officer
Industrial Technology Division

LV.Sutton Energy Complex
Comments on DRAFT NPDES permit N00001422
August 5,2015 submittal
Attachment

•
/:y'.•' ;; %.� DEP.ART;.',I:r -r OF THE ARMY
• WILMItri•:1O:i CH :T:ciCI. CORI'S ('F ErNGIN:a:AS
1 r '�..��,/• "� j e. O. 130X 10:10
,L ', WILt.11iJG1'O1 , I.O T1I CAROLINA 211.101
!AUKS (Pc:nni t 1Io. 1: 71 ) 17 Jun: 1971
Ur. J. A. Jor..s, Senior Vi cu President
Operatinr;
Caruli.ar Po,,cr 6 Light Co:nnnv
Rale i.Lh, Worth C;Irolin•>. 27602
Dear Er. Jones:
In accordance with your written requests of 20 Wog 70 and 5, 16, 17, ..nd 30 Ea:
there is inclosed a pemit i.uthori:;ln'g excavating and ilu li.i,; as necc:ccnry
to conc.truct an off-st::c::3 cooling lake adjacent to the Cape ear 1.LVi:r at
the L. V. Sutton Si:Qa : Electric Plant near Wilmington, N. C.
If any material changes in the location or plans of the structure or
work are found ncce: aiy Oh account of unforeseen or altered conditions
or otllerwir::!, revised p;anz shonid be sntbnittcc1 pronpt1y to the District
Engineer in order that thc.:c re..iuod plans, if found unobjectionable,
may receive iiia approval re.luircd by law before construction is begun.
Your aft ,on i.c.7 called to co idi li on (u) of the i r:cl.ose.d permit wh•::•h
requirts thy• i'•:rrmit:.e... i'a nn:-.Cy this office re1a i•:e tthe � •.:• .-•:3'
and co.:plot;,;:1 da;-es. t o cc -I....Ic^ -r..
The inclosed i:otic:• of 11uuilocic::ticn must be conspicuously displayed at
the site of the work.
Sincerely yours,
-6)
2 Inc is PAUS. S. 1)EE1S03
1. Permit Color'I, Corps o;
2. LNG For:. 4:436 District Engioger
SAPYL-73
11 Eby 71
Copy furnish ic, to/c; i c:^1 :
Commi•f:iou:3:, ii. Div u t c:o::+
Sptr. :'i:hrr.i.u:;, i;ul_i.},lc, ;:(; 2.7611
{

r r
f)lPAR'fllEfT or Till: Al:f•1Y
PERMIT
Wi)lri ngtnn Di strict, Corps o f far;i n, ere
••.i: •i. 't' •r •f.
rT•_�. i . f• -
f�:'it' Ir•:i:
Referring to written request dated 70 ...' �+ .
16, 17 ee 71
upon the recommendation of the Chief of Engineers, and under the provisions
of Section 10 of the Act of Congress approved birch 3, 11199 (33 U.S.C. 403),
entitled "An act making appropriations for the censtruetion, repair, ;:nd
preservation of certain public works on rivers and Ineeborn, and for other
purposes," you are hereby authorized by the Secretary of the Army
le:Lee/zee. iii:'' •i l 1 i'. li':(_'.. .e.e:, :a,
to e. .1 ' • :L. .!rt . e•,ul1n., •it....
(Here describ^ the proprisc•d structure or work and its intended ore,
including, in the ca:,e of an application for a fill permit, a deecrip-•
tion of the structures, if any, proposed to be erected on the fill.)
R)} ..l . L.,: . ,i .,.
(Here to be named the river, harbor, or waterway concerned. )
at • g't . , �f is r•:Ctt• i`i ii ir':•.:(.:•, „ f✓•
(Here to be named the neareet well-known locality--preferably a to ri or
city--and the di stance in miles and tenths from i so: c definite to poi n,;: in
the same, statirre whether ebove or below or giving direction by points
of compass.)
in accc+rdenee with the plans crtd dr:lt:inrs attached hereto
(On drawings: give fi le number or other tie finite i 1enti fi eati on mai Its•)
,. f' • • . . . . • ,r '
subject 1 o the fu)lotel n,; condi tion;,:

( • f
(a) That this i nsa rrr:rioui does not convey any property right-r, ci ther
in r Al (estate or material, or i:ny excltelve privileges; and that it does
not iullr(,riee any in my to private ,rr,
. •1 s l� f p: rt} or invasion of private
ri :lits,, or any iii frirr:!ement of federal, Stele or local laws or re-gulati(In`;,
nor does it obviate the neer:::sity of (:!,tai iiing State o, local assent re-
quired by law for the strncrure or work auCi,,ri•r.ed.
(h) That the structure or work authorized heroin shall he in accordance
with the plans and dra i nes attached hereto and construction sh:r l l be ;;ul,-
.lect to the supervision and approval of the District Engineer, Corps of Engi-
neer,, in charge of the District in which the work is to be perfur,acd.
(c) That the District Engineer may at any time make such inspections
as he may deem necessary to assure that the construction or work is per-
formed in accordance: with the conditions of this permit and all expenses
thereof shall be borne by the permittee.
(d) That the permittee shall comply promptly with any lawful ret:ul.a-
tions, conditions, or instructions affecting the structure or work author-
ized herein if and when issued by the Federal Water Quality Administration
and/or the State agency having jurisdiction to &be tc or p:'event: water pollu-
tion, including thermal or radiation pollution. Such regulations, conditions
or instructions in effect or hereafter prescribed by the Federal Water Qual-
ity Administration and/or the State agency are hereby made a condition of
this permit.
(e) That the permitter will maintain the work authorized herein in
good condition in accordance with the approved plans.
(f) That this permit may, prior to the completion of the structure or
work authorized herein, he suspended by authority of the Secretary of the
Army if it is determined that suspension is in the public interest.'*
(g) That this permit may at any time be modified by authority of the
Secretary or the Army i f it is determined that, under existing circum-
stances, modification is in the public interest.* The permittee, upon
receipt of a notice of modification, shall comply therewith as directed by
the Secretary of the Army or his authorized representative.
(h) That this permit may be revoked by authority of the Secretary of
the Army if the permittee fails to comply with any of its provision? or if
the Secretary determines that, under the existing circumstances, such action
is required in the public interest.*
(i) That any modification, suspension or revocation of this permit
shall not be the basis for a claim for damages against the United States.
(j) That the United States 'mail.iu no way be liable for any damage
to any structure or work irrahnlzo(l herein which may be caused by or result
from future operations undertaken by the Government in the public interest.*
2.

. w
f i
•
(k) 11w1- no attempt shall be r+::de by the p•rrzl ttt•'• to forbid the i',:1I
and free (i'.: by the public of .11 t'.iivi!:i.hlt: wtitcro at or ed,j:ce,it co the
structure or work :authorized by thio pe-mit.
(1) That if the display of 1i;;htr; tl!ld signs) i nu ,any r;t.'rx't'r.:.e or wark
authors:r,.[1 herein in not ot-1;t_•rr,ice prr,vidc:1 for by 1k:w, oc,-h
signalN i;$ R:w l'e prescribed 1) j r
'Y { y t•1=:; United S':..:t+.s3 Ccs.: =•� .::.,'res 0:%11 be
installed rnd maintained by and at the e):Ien= . or the perms sac::.
(m) That the permittee shall notify the District Engineer at what time
the construction or wort. will be commenced, as far in advance of til,! time
of commencement as the Di:;t"ict Engineer may specify, and of its CO:i.r'i!et)t)ri.
(n) That if the structure or work herein authorized is not convicted
on or be fore `'.r: : day of ",'�•,,' , 19 �•!, this p.:rr:)!t, if
not previously revoi:r r. --E c `i
P �� n)' Gr,`.(.'C11'ICnI .y EXYen[;==ii, .+iiF:�.l•C3i+at? and be 11t:1l
and void.
(o) That the legal requirements of all Federal agencies be met.
(p) That this permit does not authorize or approve the coo_truct n,► 01
particular structures, the authorization or approval of which may recluir'
action by the Congress or other agencies of the Federal. Covarnient,
(q) That all the provisions of this permit shall be binding on any
assignee or successor in interest of the permittee.
(r) That if the recording of this permit is poss'ible under ap1)1•i cWl e
State or local Jew, the permittee shall take such action ao my be ll::c`•:: r;,
to record this permit with the Registrar of D2eds or otirc•r Upj)'.'t::'.s i.istt. ui•f
tial charged with the reop,,n.;ibility of mai.nta ning . 'ecords is ti•U.i to ol:t'ir
interests in real property.
(s) That the permittee agree to r,:nke every reasonable of a=o t- to rare::;•—
cute the construction or work authorized herein in n manner so r., to l7i n.,r,i
any adversci impact of the construction or work on fish, wildlife z.;nci 1�:::r,r=:'•
environmental values.
(t) That the permittee agrees that it will pro;,ecate th•• eon_trLte; .e
or work authoriz:•d herein in a manner so as to minimize any der rc.c:,.;:i ou of
water quality.
•
3

. ,
• I
I ie
• •
i , . i . •
*A judgm,:nt a;.: to whetlwr or not r.usp.msi on, moed Fi en 1 ion or reline:.
is in the public :tIitore4 involves a confAdemtion of the ii.r.pact that
such action or the nbFence or any such action nay hve on fectortz
Ing the public intorest. Such 1-actors include, but are pot litf.11.:,,(1 !:(,,
nay i; at ion, Fish and ,..:.1 i.dl i re, water (Nall ty, economi C3, 0 011;.A.!r‘'.TI:i on,
aesthetics, recreotion, water supply, flood damage prevention, eco•i:1.• ,te..,s
and, in general, the needs and welFare of the pcoplc.
DY AUTHORITY or THE SECRHTARY OF THE AN-W:
...feT 17 June 1971
PAUL S. DENISON (ILate)
Colonel, Corps of Enz,ineers
District Enineer
(
.•
1ERM1TTEE HEflEHY ACCMTS THE 11.; s AND CONDITIONS OF THIS ['EMIT..
G;: ( ,'.... . . . . : z .'.'., I :,!1,•,!.' o. ir-..::.:
1971
Hy : — ---......,.. ..-'.. .. .
JignaturDf fermittee) (1,11,)
.i'I ru: Senior Vice Pre si don t
_....._.._.._..._ ...... . .•___...... . .......__.
Engineering & Operating
4
1
ENC Fonn 1771-N
25 May 1970

•
I fr
. . .
-
. •
N.
f . `...........
' •
(4 / 5!.1.-..--
.......\
V \::. 1 '-•
•i
114 .:::-.:-:: •-:-• 0\ •
I. '"....•:/-•-,./• 7. .'N V.- \ 4*
r...; ..-..---1::•:-...y.:1-1 -„\ .,,,-
.-.1-_-.:..-.-. .:-.---.1 --. •
ii. , ..,..,, . .. .,.... ,.1 -_•:.-1..,;:-...-•••.:-,.. .1
if i , -:--:c.-,---:-.:)-5
-2.-_—_:.:\---....--.--z.,•:7
_..----._•.--,..._:.(-•-1'7 c.f.:.):.:;.:t :
-.,.
•--,...-. .....z.::_---.- 1,S,. N.....
-%.• (0'.
( •
.4.1
'%.' •••••,..
' ..)..',..1
.5.:Trav
‘ I
S•e.,.: .t.)1
• N.
iN
.....%...-.NI It.
( .' •••!
U I
••••
sP•16.4. ...,,
'7.-.....,',.... ; •-• ....7:N.,\'‘.4."---"""-'1',--i.......,...'•
' l't•--..4...i.„..).
4- 1-••!..4-4--1 t-1.-....1-4-1-•••-''''..4•• •-‘,V1
A /1
...A
• in
• 7......,.....,...4• .
i .- l••••••••-•,,
",• (/ i 1
r.••
\\\I\C;.• •.......• •
...\
--.— • 1...;1,1/4'.1:..;,-../.'...
i!..E I...,..; t .•
.../
.. • ..-....-..-...............-...............................-...........-........
/ e C/,' :.•:."...'i.1.:.- .,-_:,:;;F.:., e,'. .:. ••<*' - •
1. K 5Y 77,1; :.-5..5.P
a.;.",:".1,*."; L,7•(F
—-----..-------.------.... ..-----
---------...-.--- —_. .
.',...........,.......•A,.... '.c...:.12-0'i.. ...,..4 •4...i ........i...ibe...,,,,Ataidee'itoiiisii•*?..si.,6. .w....."4‘...6.7./..............‘6...»..a.-...e..4... ........:....-....4..,..........o........,..."......--44.........-4,a•a;.......4.5ria....-..........1.44a... •••

•
LV.Sutton Energy Complex
Comments on DRAFT NPDES permit N00001422
August 5,2015 submittal
Attachment 3

• ` ' NORTH CAROLINA
•
BOARD OF WATER AND AIR RESOURCES
RALEIGH
PERMIT
For the Discharge of Sewage, Industrial Wastes, or Other Wastes
In accordance with the provisions of Article 21 of Chapter 143, General Statutes of North Carolina
as amended, and other applicable Laws, Rules and Regulations
PERMISSION IS HEREBY GRANTED TO
Carolina Power & Light Company
L. V. Sutton S. E. Plant
New Hanover County
FOR THE
construction of a 1,110 acre cooling lake supplied by a river
makeup pump station to cool and supply the condenser water
•
(580 m.g.d.) for a 620 M.W. stream electric generation station,
purge water will be uniformly controlled and discharged into
the Cape Fear River,
in accordance with the application dated November 19 , 19_7_2_, and in conformity with
the plans, specifications, and other supporting data, all of which are filed with the Department of
Water and Air Resources and are considered a part of this Permit.
This Permit shall be effective from the date of its issuance until __ate.cember___l3_.19Th.__, and
t shall be subject to the following specified conditions and limitations:
1. This permit shall become void unless the facilities are constructed in accordance
with the approved plans, specifications, and other supporting data and are completed
and placed in operation on or before March 31, 1972, or as this date may be amended
by the Board of Plater and Air Resources.
2. This permit is effective only with respect to the nature and volume of cooling
water as described in the application and other supporting data furnished by the
applicant for this stream electric generating station.
3. Water quality monitored one (1) foot below the water surface shall comply with
the stream standards outside a mixing zone extending from the eastern shore to the
center line of the river and extending not more than 1.25 miles downstream nor more
than 2700 feet upstream from point of discharge. The cross sectional area of the
designated zone shall not exceed 9.0% of the total cross sectional area of the river
at the point of discharge nor 2.56 at the mouth of upper Toomer's Creek.
4. The Company, shall conduct studies to determine thermal patterns under extreme
conditions and submit findings to the Department of Water and Air Resources. The
Company shall also establish an adequate monitoring program approved by the Department
and shall furnish data at regular intervals and in such form and detail as may be
required by the Department.
5. In the event the Company cannot comply with the terms and conditions contained
herein, the discharge shall cease and not be resumed until these conditions can
be met.
6. The Company, at least six months prior to the expiration of this permit, shall
request its extension. Upon receipt of the request, the Board will review the adequacy .
of the facilities described herein and, if indicated, will extend the permit for such
period of time and under such conditions and limitations as deemed proper.
Permit issued this the 27th day of JANUARY ,
By t•41
E. C. Hubbard, Assistant Director
Permit No. 1969 Department of Water and Air Resources

•
I
. 4
NORTH CAROLINA
Wake County -
CERTIFICATE
THIS CERTIFICATE is issued in conformity with the requirements of
Public Law 91-224 of the United States and subject to the rules of the North
Carolina Board of Water and Air Resources to Carolina Power and Light Company,
Raleigh, North Carolina, pursuant to application filed on the 20th day of
November, 1970, to discharge into the surface waters of New Hanover County,
North Carolina, cooling water from the off-stream cooling lake serving the
Company's L. V. Sutton Steam Electric Plant.
After publication of notice of the application in the Wilmington
Morning Star on the 8th day of December, 1970, and determination that no
public hearing upon said application is necessary, the North Carolina Board
of Water and Air Resources hereby certifies, subject to any conditions here-
inafter set forth, that there is reasonable assurance that the proposed activity
of the applicant will be conducted in a manner which will not violate applicable
water quality standards.
Conditions of Certificate: Applicable project construction and opera-
tion is to be done in accordance with plans and specifications made a part of North
Carolina Board of Water and Air Resources Permit Number 1969. Terms and conditions
set forth in Permit Number 1969 are by reference incorporated in and made a part
of this certification.
Violation of any of the conditions herein set forth shall result in
revocation of this Certificate.
This the 27th day of January, 1971.
NORTH CAROLINA BOARD OF WAT AND AIR RESOURCES
by - ,4(Z7-
Ge rge E. Pickett, Director
Certificate No. 4-A

.. .. .�- s.e.-e.urr�m..avwc•.sr...•a-w-...-sm.-m+a•+�vw �v-,aa� «.�A•aon.m-a++s�a.T`-z's. . -r,••r ..
1
Nnv.c uu..r 1c) 1971L-
TO: North Carolina Board of Water and Air Resources
Raleigh, North Carolina
Gentlemen:
In accordance with the provisions of Article 21 of Chapter 143, General Statutes of North Carolina as amend-
ed, application is hereby made by Carolina Power & Light Company
(Name of board,individual yr others)
2g3btkcs n rrthl j,r cervic s corpora ion with general offices , in the county
(Name of city,village,town,sanitary district or establishment)
of Wake , to the North Carolina Board of Water and Air Resources for the approval
(Name of county)
of the accompanying plans, specifications, and other data submitted herewith covering the construction
xi and operation of a 1110 acre cools g. lake with_make-up izator aration
and for a "Certificate of Approval" and/or "Permit" for the discharge of heated water
•swats..
from= this cooling nond
industrial waste or other wastes)
(rowers or treatment plant)
serving L. V. Sutton S. E. Plant into
(Name of municipality,Institution,or Industry,etc.) (Nam* of treatment plant)
xr rhe anrfare waters of the Cape Fear River
(surface or ground waters) (Name of w.t.r tours. If surface
at
waters;if ground waters,state water course to which they are tributary)
E2.305.400 on the North Carolina Grid System
and N195,200 (Exact location of point o/discharge)
The plans for the proposed works have been prepared by Brown &laid , Inc.
(Engineering Firm)
of Houston, texas . It is estimated that treatment works will provide .
(Address)
adequate capacity to serve the Sutton Plant for
the life of the plant
xi7ezmac at which time It is estimated the average daily sewage or waste flow will not
exceed ** gallons. It is further expected that the treatment works will effect overall reductions in
pollution as follows: B.O.D. (5-day 20°C ** %, suspended solids ** %, total solids *'*
coliform bacteria ** %, and toxic materials ' ** %. The cost of the proposed works is estimated
to be: sewers $ ** , pumping stations $ ** , treatn,•'nt plant $ ** ,MK=
$_5,0 million The works will be completed and in operation on or helot, .march 31
including land
The applicant hereby agrees that the proposed works will b;: .:orstriicl ' in strict accordance with the ap-
proved plans and specifications or subsequently approved changes therein ni„1 il.;ther agrees to place its opera-
tion under the care of a competent person and to maintain and vpt:ratt• tip t'l:tr:t according to the best accepted
practice and in accordance with the plans and specifications approved by the 1.,•,^rrdl.
** Not applicable - See attached "—
Report. Signature _ • "I .7(
=-
Title Seiiior !'ice. ]'resident
Mailing Address_P- ,S1.J;s.z, 1.�51. Raleigh. N. C. 27602
• Specify percentag.reduction for each toxic substance, using additional sheet. it o•crsen.,